Posted on 05/23/2008 3:44:47 PM PDT by djf
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- In another nod to the Washington Constitution's broad privacy protections, the state Supreme Court has thrown out the drug conviction of a man who was searched by police solely because of his weird behavior.
Thursday's unanimous decision reinforces the rules for simple pat-downs under state law, which offers stronger safeguards against police searches than the U.S. Constitution.
Without a search warrant or probable cause to make an arrest, police in Washington may frisk someone for weapons only if an officer has reason to believe the person is armed and dangerous.
The court said those rules weren't followed in the case of Michael D. Setterstrom, who was arrested in 2005 after police got a call about two men behaving oddly at a Department of Social and Health Services office in Tumwater.
When two officers showed up at the office, Setterstrom was sitting on a bench, filling out an application for public assistance. He was sitting next to another man, who was asleep.
Setterstrom, described as increasingly nervous and fidgety, gave two different names to the officers when questioned. Setterstrom also blurted out the second name when police woke his companion to ask about Setterstrom's true identity.
Believing Setterstrom was high on methamphetamine, Lt. Don Stevens frisked him for possible weapons.
Although Setterstrom didn't stand up, put his hands in his pockets or do anything threatening, Stevens said he feared danger because his experience was that meth users may become violent without warning.
The pat-down uncovered a small plastic baggie of white powder in Setterstrom's pocket. Stevens put the baggie on the bench and told Setterstrom he was under arrest.
"What happened next was, we assume, unusual," the court said: Setterstrom fell to his knees, grabbed the baggie and swallowed it. "For obvious reasons, police never recovered the baggie," Justice James Johnson wrote for the court.
Police also found a small, locked safe in Setterstrom's backpack. After getting a search warrant, police opened the safe and found another baggie of meth, along with a needle, a pipe, and a scale. Setterstrom was convicted of drug possession and sentenced to six months in jail.
He appealed, claiming the search was illegal. The Supreme Court agreed.
To frisk someone without a warrant or probable cause for an arrest, police must have "a reasonable belief, based on objective facts, that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous."
The court said that justification didn't exist in Setterstrom's case. In fact, justices said, the record shows only that Setterstrom may have been high - and that isn't a crime.
Furthermore, police didn't find Setterstrom "in a dark alley in a crime-ridden area," the court said. Rather, he was lawfully in the public area of a social services office, filling out a form for government benefits.
"It seems likely that some people filling out benefits forms exhibit erratic behavior, making employment difficult and benefits applicable," the court said.
Since the search warrant for the safe in Setterstrom's backpack was based on the illegal pat-down, his conviction for the drugs within must be overturned, the court ruled.
---
The case is No. 79690-4, State v. Setterstrom.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.courts.wa.gov
The inmates are running the asylum!
I guess you think that “probable cause” is too tight a restriction.
“OLYMPIA, Wash. — In another nod to the Washington Constitution’s broad privacy protections, the state Supreme Court has thrown out the drug conviction of a man who was searched by police solely because of his weird behavior..”
Ya know.. if odd behavior allowed a cop to frisk, most of WA citizens would be getting felt up daily.
Odd behavior? That just about covers everyone in Seattle - we’re all pretty odd in one way or other .... just look at the mayor Greg Nickols, ....
Ever been to Capitol Hill?
I’m about 30 miles south of Seattle, been years since I was downtown.
One of these days, maybe... some good restaurants down there.
Horsecrap. The state is just trying to let as many publicly drunk and high low-lifes as possible get away with it because they hate order.
The thing that lets you know this is a dishonest decision is that there's no harm in a pat-down. We get one at the airport every time we travel, fer goshsakes. It's only harmful if you've got drugs or guns, dude.
The democrat pro-criminal vermin on the Washington State Supreme Court have an astonishing narrow definition of probable cause. Crime rates will soar in Washington State, as they have in the UK, where similar monsters abuse judicial power.
...he was lawfully in the public area of a social services office, filling out a form for government benefits.
Of course he is drawing entitlement funds! Get back to work everyone, druggies on welfare are depending on YOU.
And then we have this gem:
"It seems likely that some people filling out benefits forms exhibit erratic behavior, making employment difficult and benefits applicable," the court said.
WTF? Tell me this is a joke. Please tell me it is a joke. PLEASE. Am I reading this wrong? What does the court mean by this? If you are a vegetable, a disabled war veteran, or an orphan, I'm OK with the state propping you up.
Odd behavior is probable cause to suspect drug or alcohol use. Following your logic a cop who pulled me over for a sobriety test because I drove erratically would have no probable cause.
Ever been to Capitol Hill?
Yeah, a great pizza place there right near the top - been a while since I was there. I usually take the ferry from Bainbridge (walk-on) so I’m right downtown between Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market. Great jazz pubs (New Orleans) near the Square ....
Washington state has Constitutionally protected privacy laws.
Article 1, Section 7 reads: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”
Considering the tone of the replies here, maybe I shouldn’t have even posted it...
Am I the only one who has ever read Les Miserables?
Jeesh...
BeniHanas.
And hope you don’t get any finger pieces in your stir fry.
Them dudes can chop!!
Tough defining ‘odd behavior’ in the context of unreasonable search and seizure.
Well, feeling “in danger” is a higher standard, and I could agree with that if the perp had done something obviously threatening.
But “odd behavior” is a pretty loose standard. You might think somethings odd but I don’t.
We’re supposed to be protected from arbitrary laws. The law is supposed to be clear and easily understandable, so that we know what we can and cannot do.
“Odd behavior” does not come anywhere near meeting that standard.
I just wonder how many law enforcement officers are going to get killed, because they didn’t have sufficient legal protection to ‘frisk’ a perp; and the perp decided to kill the officer.
If history is any indicator, the cop-killer will probably be asked to speak at college graduations, have a movie made about his life, and have celebrities demanding the governor pardon him.
Both of which were completely unremarkable and generally unremarked until the 20th Century Bolsheviks took control of government.
Best regards,
Exactly. I guess the best we can hope for here is that one of these ‘protected citizens acting strangely’ draws a weapon one day, as opposed to the police searching him, finding his gun, and sending him to jail—kills him instead when the perp draws it. Case closed. No tax dollars spent on the idiot and no state supreme court appeals as perp will be ten feet under. The only possible plus.
Peace Officers generally do not get killed. Law Enforcement Officers, on the other hand, frequently seem to be at the center of one cluster foxtrot or other.
A curious phenomenon of the 20th Century.
Best regards,
Seattle has a lot of dangerous people that frequently are a threat to the general population. This ruling is not a good one. I personally have been in fear for my life/or assaulted minding my own business three times in downtown Seattle. Once around 1 PM on a Sunday leaving work and walking to my car. Once at night unlocking the door to my apartment complex on a busy street in lower Queen Anne and finally in the middle of a kiss on a first date outside of a nice downtown restaurant (a weird acting drunk guy down the street threw a walkman at us and hit my date's head, giving him a concussion). Seattle is a very unsafe place and it just became much more so.
Do you actually subscribe to the theory that cops can protect you? Get a gun, learn how to use it, get a CCW or whatever they are called in Washington State. Carry a weapon and you will feel less threatened by "odd behavior".
If the law in Washington won't allow you to have a concealed weapons permit, work to change the law. Cops searching people at random is a definite infringement of our rights under the 4th amendment, never mind the Washington State constitution.
Cops can't protect you, having them shake down the odd person now and then will not save anyone and they can't be there when you need help, you must help yourself.
Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
One last shot, anyone who thinks cops should be able to search people at will based on "odd behavior" is just looking to have the rest of their bill of rights protections ripped away. The old saw about having nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is,in a word, BS. People who use that argument obviously think the bill of rights was written to protect criminals and if you believe that you are lost. The second amendment was written so we wouldn't have to rely solely on cops to save our tails, we were suppose to be able to save our self or at least have a fighting chance to do so.
I worked for Airborne on lower Queen Anne for years, then moved more towards the central district and worked there.
So about ten years total of going down there every day.
Never had a problem.
But I’ve been contracting and telecommuting since about ‘90 so I rarely, I mean very rarely go down there anymore.
But odd behavior and lying to the beat cop were not tolerated at all, and were often punished corporally on the spot.
If someone appears to be barely in control of himself, I don't see anything wrong with a pat-down, for his sake as well as everyone else's.
Wasn’t odd behavior how they caught the millennial terrorist bomb plot dude at the Washington boarder?
The bar is much lower than that.
Here a little old lady gets a pat-down and a smack-down because she would not "follow orders".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M
And yes, the same little old ladies also get the same treatment and disrespect in our nation's airports.
The question Law Enforcement Officers need to ask their union is why should they risk their lives for the petite bureaucrageouis who seem to delight in their ability to provoke the people to righteous wrath and fury?
Best regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.